Science relies on observable, repeatable experience, while religions rely on....

[geauxtohell]

There are numerous theories that Science has that can neither be tested nor have experiments repeated. So much for the claim that Science only believes in that which can be observed and repeatable experiments conducted.

Such as?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Science relies on the scientific method, a methodology created by man to ensure that the venture is kept in the natural world.

You can't falsify the existence of the supernatural, so you can never introduce the supernatural into any legitimate scientific theory.

Religion relies on faith.

The two ventures are merely seperate and not mutually exclusive.

I think Dr. Ken Miller, the author of "Finding Darwin's God", does the best job of laying this out.

I only have a problem with science and/or religion when one tries to transpose itself into the other.

I.e. the "intelligent design" canard.

Thus is a huge problem I have with the zealots on both sides of the arguments, they actually support each other if you read most of it. Even the "worst" religions have hints of truth and never really delve into what science explains, and science does not really prove beyond what our physical world is, nor can it (at least yet) delve into anything more than the physical world.

If demanding that intelligent adults stop genuflecting to supernatural boogey men, than yes---I am a zealot